Originally posted by TheColdDragon
The sadness of our times is that this issue of Homosexuality was only made an issue since the inception of the USA

WOW! That's a new one to me! In the entirety of history, only the good ol' US of A persecuted homosexuals! That evil nation started it all.
Obviously, discrimination, prejudice and violence toward 'alternative' types started in July of 1776. It was unheard of before then, right? Everyone
was free and equal and happy and never persecuted - in all nations and cultures - before the nasty U.S.A. showed up and began to crush human-rights
and individuality.

That statement is so staggeringly broad and uninformed that I don't even know where to begin attacking it. Where did you get this information by the
way? From a textbook published in North Korea?

Oh no, not at all. There's been persecution, genocide and ethnic cleansing for a long long while.

However, only recently has Homosexuality been singled out as something to wage spiritual war against.

The Puritans gave us the incredibly shallow minded, schizophrenic treatment of sex and sexuality that we now struggle to either

A) Legislate everyone's sexuality so that it is offensive to nobody.

or

B) Glorify as some self-defining aspect that over rules all others.

I read a very interesting article today about sex and the inconvenient truth about just regular sexual relationships between men and women, which only
re-enforced my opinion concerning the thick viscous layer of crap that the majority of people layer on their reality as if it was cement being laid
for a foundation for a excrement based house.

Honestly, I don't think God cares, I don't think Christ cares, and I don't think anyone who has been dead for thousands of years cares about Joey
bum-spelunking Jimmy.

And the only reason I think most Christians care is because they're indefinitely and perpetually obsessed with being better than other people, even
if they don't realize it. Christianity's napoleon complex is so huge you'd think all their "Talents" were less than raisin sized.

My advice? Get naked, have some fun with one or more people. Get your soul good and damned, that way, at least you know you've got some bollocks
unlike mister Shaky-boots who's afraid to displease his mum and dad, even if it includes the one flying about in a sky-bound trolley.

Hell's bound to be loads more interesting than the codger's sky-lodge.

Originally posted by EricD
1)I would appreciate it if you could extrapolate a bit on your belief that the term 'Pontiff' and it's current use to refer to Peter has any
relevance.

It's not my belief, it is historical fact where the title Pontiff comes from. You can follow my links above to see the basic information in
Wikipedia, or take the terms and do further searches on them.
For example:

Pontifex maximus: the Roman high priest.
The pontifex maximus was not a real magistrate: he did not serve for a fixed period but for life, and he remained, officially, a citizen. As the title
suggests, the pontifex maximus was 'the greatest' or chairman of the college of the pontifices, 'priests'. They were responsible for the Roman
state cult as a whole and for several cults in particular, viz. the cults that had no priestly college of their own (such as the augures, the
decemviri sacris faciundis and the fetiales).
…
The main task of the pontifices was to maintain the pax deorum, the 'peace with the gods'. To obtain this goal, they gave advise to the magistrates,
interpreted the omens, controlled the calendar and oversaw funerals. The pontifex maximus was responsible for a large collection of omens (annales
maximi); every year, he wrote down the celestial and other signs, and added the events that had followed the omens, so that future generation would be
able to better understand the divine will.
...
Julius Caesar was elected pontifex maximus in 63 BCE and kept the office until his death. The house where he spent the night before he was killed, was
the domus publica. After his death, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus became pontifex maximus (44-12 BCE); when he died, the emperor Augustus became responsible
for the state cult. He also put an end to the election of the pontifices. From then on, a position in the college of pontifices was a sign of special
imperial favor, comparable to a decoration in our age.
The word pontifex is sometimes explained as 'bridge builder', but is in fact related to the Etruscan word pont, 'road', and means something like
'preparer of the road'. The pope still calls himself pontifex maximus.
Because the pontifex maximus was not a real magistrate, he was not allowed to wear the toga with the purple border. However, he could be recognized by
the iron knife (secespita). In 381, the Roman emperor Gratian was the first to decline to use the title of pontifex maximus. It was accepted by the pope.

These are not anti-catholic sites either, they are simply sites on the historical Roman Empire. You will find that there is a large following of the
historical Old Roman Empire, including even re-enactors, much like there are for the Civil War.

Originally posted by EricD
I don't believe that the Catholic Church claims that the term 'Pontiff' was used by the ECF. It may very well be that Peter did not and would not
use that term. It being an anachronism wouldn't mean that someone in the tenth century didn't occupy the same position as Peter.

It was impossible for Peter to be the Pontiff because Nero was the Pontiff in Peters time...
You catch the significance of that?
The line of Popes starts at Damasus I, and before him it was all Roman Emperors. Something that the Catholic Church does not like to point out, so
they obscure it. You can even see apologists attempts to do this in the Wikipedia Article mentioned above, were they split hairs on whether each Pope
used the terminology of "Pontifex" or "Pontifex Maximus", of course they do not want you to know that their line of Popes went back to Nero then
again to Tiberius (the Pontifex under whom Christ was put to death). Especially since under Preterism (the school of Eschatology used by the RCC),
they Claim Nero to be the Antichrist mentioned in Revelations. You would think that they couldn't easily explain away having an Antichrist in their
lineage of Popes, but they certainly have tried by lying about History, and shifting the line from Nero to Peter.

Originally posted by EricD
I believe that the Church does teach that the Bishop of Rome has always been successor of Peter, who was established as the head of the Church by
Christ, regardless of the terms used to refer to him.

That Church is not the same church as the Roman Catholic Church. This church existed before the Great Schism, and all Christian Churches can show a
lineage back to that original church. Out of all the other existing Churches that remain from various schisms, only the Roman Catholic Church remains
steadfastly involved in Roman Paganism.
For example:
Veneration of Mary = Roman Goddess/mother & child Worship.
Veneration of Saints (including the spheres over which they control) = Polytheism.
Nuns = Vestal Virgins.
Etc..

Originally posted by EricD
2)I don't think that Peter would object to anyone calling him Pope, especially as it has nothing to do with the term 'Pontiff'.

One of the most amazing aspects about the ascendancy of the papacy is that the church of Rome promotes the pope as the "Pontifex Maximus" or,
Supreme Pontiff. The title Pontifex Maximus is mentioned numerous times by the early church fathers (particularly by Tertullian), but it was not
applied to a Christian bishop. The early church fathers say that the Pontifex Maximus was the "King of Heathendom", the evil high priest of the
pagan mystery religion of Rome. It is certainly not likely that Christ appointed Peter "Pontifex Maximus" of Rome.

Again, show me a quote that directly supports homosexuality in the Bible and I'll believe you. Otherwise, please refrain from calling people
"IDIOTS" who can understand what they read.

You may not accept it as just or right - but it is what it is. Please don't try to pretend otherwise.

I was not implying that people who read the Bible as an anti-homosexual work are idiots (because it IS a homophobic work of fiction), rather, I was
pointing out that those who use the Bible to condone their stigma of homosexual practices to be 'idiots'. That much is certainly true.

But that aside, so convoluted, ambigious and contradictory is the Bible that ANYTHING is up for interpretation/debate! Throw the blasted book away,
PLEASE. Read Aesop's fables instead...

There is a actually very little that is up for debate in the bible, which is why I can have discussions with numerous Christians of other faiths and
we can agree on 99.9% of what we talk about. The few things that we might disagree on are generally going to be doctrinal issues.

I always find it amusing that the biggest experts on the Bible are those who are not Christians.

im not anti gay in anyway but...
the whole point of sex is to pro-create
2 people of the same sex cannot pro create so shouldnt really be having sex.
and only men can have true sex, lesbians can only do foreplay .

only human and dolphins have sex for pleasure( so i read somewhere) so if gay men are having penetrave sex for pleasure it is wrong as they cant
produce offspring by doing so.

i know i wont be popular for saying so but its obviously true when u think about it.

but who am i to judge...id rather not witness gay affection but i have no problem with it

As someone who has recently fell back into believing, my perspective has changed on the matter. I still believe it to be a choice, but I won't have a
fuss over it like I used to. Each is entitled to make their own choice and should be free of judgement from others. Judgement from others is useless
as those making this choice are not to be held accountable for their actions to those that condemn it.

However, if it is wrong in the eyes of the one they are to be held accountable to, then they will be treated appropriately. If it in fact isn't
wrong, than any fuss about it is just wasting ones breathe. Since I am not in that seat of judgement, I withhold opinion. If I'm not mistaken "do
not judge lest you be judged" is a strong underlying theme in the bible that hasn't been tainted. Which is more than can be said of some other
themes in the bible. Do not lose sight of the fact that this compromised integrity came about from man and in no way makes anyone less accountable for
their actions.

Originally posted by gordon31
im not anti gay in anyway but...
the whole point of sex is to pro-create
2 people of the same sex cannot pro create so shouldnt really be having sex.
and only men can have true sex, lesbians can only do foreplay .

only human and dolphins have sex for pleasure( so i read somewhere) so if gay men are having penetrave sex for pleasure it is wrong as they cant
produce offspring by doing so.

i know i wont be popular for saying so but its obviously true when u think about it.

but who am i to judge...id rather not witness gay affection but i have no problem with it

You obviously DO have a problem with it, accompanied by some ghastly misconceptions about it. I pity you, and I also pity whatever poor soul gave your
post a star.

Anyway, using a condom during sex is 'wrong' by that logic. No more protective sex/masturbation for you, else you are a hypocrite!

And speaking of homosexuality in the Bible, from the Old Testament, it sure looks like little David & Jonathan were doing a little more than (shall we
say) ‘holding hands’…hmmmm: l

Look how many 'sexual phrases' in the Hebrew occur in this one verse alone – and yet David can still be described in highly favourable terms (Thus
saith YHWH, Behold David, a Man after my Own Heart !’) despite his tryst in the sack with another male (Jonathan) and his ruthless murder of Uriah
the Hitite so he could bang Bath-Shebiti (‘daughter of the 7-gods’) i.e. BathSheba, and busy himself with exterminating the Philistines and even
cutting off their genitals !

QUOTE 1 Sam 20:30-31

“Then Saul's anger was fired-up against [his son] Jonathan, and he spoke to him saying, Ah, you [are indeed a] son of that perverse and rebellious
female !! Do you imagine that I do not know that you have selected (Heb. “chosen to marry”) that son of Yissai (=Jesse) to your Confusion (lit,
‘transvestitism’) and to the Confusion of your mother’s nakedness? As long as this son of Yissai walks [living] upon the earth, your lineage
will never be continued—now bring him here, so I can kill him !”

Glossary (the Masoretic Text is only ONE version from AD 980 in Leningrad: there are others: the earlier Hebrew Vorlage underlay to the Greek
Septuagint LXX found in Caves 4 and 11 at Qumran, as well as Aquila's and Theodotion's & Symmachus' Greek Old Testament--all which show blatantly
homo-sexual words being spoken here--very awkward for modern day Jews and Christians to have to deal with (it's a good job for them that most of
these persons cannot read Hebrew or Greek !!)

(‘Perverse Female’ = a woman who mounts the male during intercourse, thereby according to the Rebbes perverting the order of creation, resulting
in a ‘butch’ woman or an ‘effeminate’ male child)

(‘to the Confusion of your mother’s nudity’ – to reverse the roles of the sexes in intercourse)

(‘If you persist in this kind of behavior, how will your lineage be established’ i.e. ‘sleeping with David will not produce any princes of the
blood’)

Then of course we have David’s point of view, in love-poetry no less
2 Sam 1:25-26 "How the mighty have fallen in battle! Ah, Jonathan lies slain on your heights ! Oh how I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; yea
you were very precious to me, your love was full of wonderment to me, far surpassing that of any woman !!

And still this man can be called ‘a man after YHWH’s own heart’ ! I guess the Priestly Holiness Code in Leveticus (now part of the so-called Law
of Moses) was not known to David when it came to ‘lying with a male as with a female’—that sure would explain why this David character (being of
the tribe of Judah not Levi) could put on the white linen ephod of the Levitical priests and prance half-naked in front of the Ark of the Covenent,
when the Torah specifically relegates this kind of priestly activity to tribe of LEVI alone…!!

Originally posted by VergeofObscene
But that aside, so convoluted, ambigious and contradictory is the Bible that ANYTHING is up for interpretation/debate!

That's a true statement in many instances. Still, some things are pretty evident in the Bible: bestiality, homosexuality, eating pork, etc. are never
promoted as the right thing to do. But that also touches upon the problem of people trying to twist the words as opposed to what the thing actually
says.

I'm not taking the stance (personally) that the Bible is the one true word of God. I don't believe that. But I think your statement goes a bit too
far. Whether or not you like it, the Bible is a cornerstone of western culture, beliefs, literature and collective myths and archetypes. In that
sense, it is a GREAT book. The Psalms, Genesis, the legendary stories of Noah, Moses, Daniel and others are iconic and a cornerstone of our
culture and society. Let's not try to totally dismiss what the Bible does have to offer. Again, it is what it is. But one thing it is not; is totally
worthless.

Originally posted by passenger
[Whether or not you like it, the Bible is a cornerstone of western culture, beliefs, literature and collective myths and archetypes. In that sense, it
is a GREAT book. The Psalms, Genesis, the legendary stories of Noah, Moses, Daniel and others are iconic and a cornerstone of our culture and
society. Let's not try to totally dismiss what the Bible does have to offer. Again, it is what it is. But one thing it is not; is totally worthless.

Should it be a cornerstone? If it should, how long should it be a corernstone? FOREVER? Therein, is there no basis by which the Bible itself could be
considered outdated and insufficient for the needs of the common age?

SHOULD the bible be one of THE Cornerstones of Western Thought and Morals?

I can't presume to answer if the Bible should be "considered outdated and insufficient'. One part of me says yes: it's obvious because it hasn't
been updated for about two-thousand years or so. The other part says no; parts of it are timeless and eternal. If you are going to pick apart one
bit, then all the others are open to dissection as well.

Are we really willing to debate whether stealing is good or bad? Murder? Shellfish consumption?

Just because the Bible doesn't appeal to everything you believe doesn't mean it is ipso-facto wrong. My point still remains the same: it says
what it says. If you don't believe that then fine. Just don't try and tell me it really means something else.

I don't believe that Nazis like Jews. I don't believe that Muslims love pork. I don't believe that the KKK accepts black people. I don't believe
that the Bible condones homosexuality. It is what it is.

I can't presume to answer if the Bible should be "considered outdated and insufficient'. One part of me says yes: it's obvious because it hasn't
been updated for about two-thousand years or so. The other part says no; parts of it are timeless and eternal. If you are going to pick apart one
bit, then all the others are open to dissection as well.

It is worthwhile to remember not to remove a fly from your friend's head with an axe; there is no reason to discard what may in common be considered
worthwhile. The disparity of what people consider worthwhile is often predicated upon the rest of your argument.

Are we really willing to debate whether stealing is good or bad? Murder? Shellfish consumption?

Depends on how you define stealing and what you mean by the definition. Also depends on how you define murder and what you mean by the definition.

I can say that Marriage seems quite an antiquated notion, bereft of any sense of dignity or significance in a modern age whereby couples are living to
their hundred's. "Till Death do you Part" now more foreboding omen than benediction of grace.

Just because the Bible doesn't appeal to everything you believe doesn't mean it is ipso-facto wrong. My point still remains the same: it says
what it says. If you don't believe that then fine. Just don't try and tell me it really means something else.

Even I don't appeal to everything I believe. I merely think that the direction western civilization has gone is one of slowly poisoning our hearts
and minds with fanaticism... when someone says "The Bible is a Cornerstone of Western Thought," I Must ask if it SHOULD be. Not whether the book
should exist, whether we should prop it up to Godly proportions and worship it as something which has significance in our existence as a whole.

I don't believe that Nazis like Jews. I don't believe that Muslims love pork. I don't believe that the KKK accepts black people. I don't believe
that the Bible condones homosexuality. It is what it is.

Well, I for one think that several of the contributions to this thread make it quite clear that the anti-homosexual interpretation of the bible has
taken great liberties with out-of-context verses and parables.

Which is unsurprising; this sort of trend towards anti-homosexualism CAME from the anti-sex rhetoric of the Puritans.

I am not saying the verses were invented and inserted into the bible by the Puritans, I am saying that the anti-homosexual procelytizing only ramped
up since the hooks got in us during the late 18th century.

Prior to that, I am unaware of any rampant anti-homosexual movements. Anti-ethnic movements, yes, but Homosexuality was largely ignored for much of
history.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
I was having an interesting discussiong with someone in ATS chat room the other day. He wasn't against homosexuality but after I told him that the
Bible never said that homosexuality was a sin, he showed me the verses Romans 1:26-27. I told him that it was in the context of ritual worship. He
brought up a good point. Even if it was in the context of pagan temple worship, it still shows that homosexuality was unnatural as a consequence.

Granted, it may show that homosexuality was wrong in some cases, but the wordings show that it is universally wrong.

Is it as simple as that?

Actually, no. It was only until recent (this century) was the verses actually used against homosexuality. I will not mention the other verses in the
Bible because they have been debunked throughoutly in other threads.

.

I will attempt to debunk that the verses of Roman

1 Corinthians 6:9 speaks about "Effeminates" will not inher Heaven, how much more would a homosexual not inherit Heaven?

An 'effeminate' in the Koine Greek of the New Testament placed into the pen of Saul of Tarsus ('Paul'), a man who never 'met Iesous in the
flesh' but only in dreams and visions (like my cook !) in his cultic technical words and overall language in his 'list' of 'those who will not
inherit the kingdom' seems best to refer to the ritual-cultic (i.e. pagan, non Jewish) actions of the worshippers of the resurrection-fertility god
Attis during the Attic Festival of Hillary (lit. 'Joy', which celebrated the Resurrection of the god after 3-days of prayers and rituals the
sacrificial death of young 'effieminate' Attis every Spring, typiclaly around the Spring Equinox, our present day March 21st ) the devotees of whom
are actively encouraged to sieze special sacrificial knives and (in a frenzy of spiritual awakening !) castrate themselves at the culmination of an
ecstatic trance ceremony (involving fasting and wine) and fling their cut off genitals 'into the first house they pass by', the owners of which must
dress them by law from that point as women, although technically they have a male organ (left) on their bodies. Once 'made effeminate' they can
identify with the castration of Attis who was later killed by a wild boar.

The worship of the ecstatic 'effeminate' & Bi-sexual wine-god Dionysius (Bacchus) was also syncrestically related to Attis in some of the later
cults/mystery religions of Saul of Tarsus' time (sometimes he is called Dionysius-Attis).

Saul of Tarsus would not have had any real frame of reference by what we today call an 'alternate' homosexual lifestyle, since he lived in the
larger Hellenic (Greek) world where bi-sexuality was practically the norm among Greek and Roman Citizens, in and outside of heterosexual marriage and
relationships--most often a sexual relationship between an older man (typically the 'top' or sexually active partner) and a young pre-bearded male
aged 13 to 18 (generally sexually passive partner, aka the 'bottom'), which is echoed in the unfiltered writings of Plato and Aristotle where
man-boy love was considered the highest expression of love-between-equals (often these overtly homosexual love passages in Dialogues such as The
Symposium etc. are deliberately left out of the English translations, especially in puritanical America, where even homosexuality among animals such
as birds (e.g. doves, who mate for life) gorillas and higher primates, and rams etc. are supressed from the attention of the 'dumbed down' general
non-educated public).

But R. Yehoshua bar Yosef ('Jeezuzz' aka Gk. 'Iesous') who never met this Saul/Paul character in person had other things to say on this subject
apparently, tpo judge from the author of Matthew 19:12, whoever this Matathiah guy was (his gospel circulated for 200 years without a title !)

'Amen I say unto you, there are some who are born without testicles from their mother's womb, and others that are deliberately-made castrati by men,
still others who castrate themselves for the sake of entering into the Kingdom of Heaven...let only the man who is able to receive castration, receive
it.'

There seems to be a lot more to this subject than meets the eye..at least at first !!

I don't quite know where you got the 'effeminate male' business being necessarily sinful in the councils approved 'bible' --certainly most
homosexual men in the world who sleep sexually ('carnally') with members of their own gender are not effeminate in actions or appearance, but tend
to 'blend into society passing for straight' sort of like Rock Hudson did in the 1950s. Unless you think he was effeminate, i.e. outside of the
bedroom !

So...by your definition of doing un-manly things as being 'sinful' in the 'canonical Nicene-Javneh approved council bible versions' I have a quick
question for you:

Would R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (aka 'Jeeezuzz' to the non Greek non Aramaic reading English speaking public...) be considered in any
way effeminate, in that (at least according to the writer (whoever he was ! John the Elder, perhaps?) of the 4th Greek Canonical Nicene
(barely-approved) Gospel he seemed to be imitating the Greeks (can you say Socrates & Plato's Man-Boy loving Symposium Dialogue?) by liking to
'recline' with 'the disciple whom he loved' like some kind of boy-loving pagan Greek philosopher snuggling with their boy loves at ow set
floor-tables during Pesach with 'the (gramatically MALE) disciple whom he loved' whom he allowed TO LEAN UPON HIS BREAST (see the so-called Last
Supper Scene, outlined in John 13:21

21And when Iesous had finished speaking, he began to become sorrowful (cf: sorrowful unto death is that man to whom his best friend has betrayed, from
the Scroll of the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon end of Proverb #1, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947) and spoke saying, Amen Amen I say to you
all, One of you (reclining here) shall turn me in ! . 22 Then his disciples began to examine each another, not knowing to which one (of the 12) he was
referring. . 23 And there was one of his disciples, the disciple whom Iesous 'loved' (Gk. lit. 'snuggling against') Iesous' breast.

Then Shimeon ha Kephah (Gk: 'Ho Simeon ho Petros' aka 'Peter') motioned to that disciple who was (reclining upon Iesous), and said to him "Can
you tell us who it is of whom he is speaking?" 25 And that disciple, reclining back touching Jesus' breasts, said to Him, "Rabbouni, to whom are
you referring ? And Iesous said to him who was reclining on his breast, It is One of the 12."

Seems like the Son of David and a Snuggling Breast Reclining Yonathan boy toy of sorts are here paralleling by 'typological mirroring' the original
son of Jesse David and his own boy-toy Jonathan, both of whom seemed to have been doing a LOT more than just holding hands, if we are to understand
the vicious screed of the boy's father Saul as recorded in 1 Samuel 20:30 with all those homo-sex-words all crammed into a few choice lines...most of
which even the Greek Old Testament translators had so much trouble putting meaningfully into their own language from all the technical ritual language
of the original un-pointed paleo-Hebrew of 1 Sam 20:30-31 (see Symmuchus, some of the LXX attempts, Aquila and Theodotion's version attempts of what
was supposed to having been said here !!)

Those who are able to read the original languages of the mangled and contradictory hand written texts of both old and new testaments in the
'canonical bible' traditions can often see and understand things that the blind masses of believers cannot see --

His name is YAHOSHUA not "Yehoshua" if you wan't to get technical.
The Lord was NOT called Yahoshua "son of Yoshef" by his disiples or the people who believed in him. he was called Yahoshua son of Yoshef" by people
who DID NOT believe he was the Saviour, on 2 occations 1. Luke 4:22, John 6:42.
Anyone who has common sense knows The Apostle Yohanan (John) leaned on the Lord's Chest as a child looking up to his God, the simple fact you don't
get it shows you ain't this "intelectual" you try to seem like.

The Orthodox Church and those who call themselves Jews both say "Effeminatism" is wrong, so you can argue all you want the scriptures don't support
you.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.